Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV
@p2prada
Wouldn't it be the case that the prominent air forces would keep a mix of 5+4.5+4 generation fighters. So, in that case
the significance of LCA (Mark II) is not completely lost?
In terms of relevance. LCA Mk2 isn't equivalent to a EF, Gripen NG or Rafale. It is aerodynamically equivalent to a Mirage-2000 while being as advanced as the F-16V (stopgap upgrade program for USAF because of F-35 delays). Not the Block 60, though. That's a completely different aircraft.
So, the LCA Mk2 may be effective until 2020, but not beyond that. It will fall into the obsolete category before long. Also note that MK2 will actually be inducted during that time, where the threat perception may be completely different.
Also, how does LCA matches to its contemporaries single engine 4th generation fighters ex JF-17, J-10, Gripen, F-16(Blk 52) in terms of flying characteristics,
LCA Mk1 is inferior to Mirage-2000 in performance. It is currently between a Mirage-III and a Mirage-2000 and is inferior to even Bison when it comes to transonic acceleration. LCA Mk2 should have slightly inferior turn rates compared to Mirage-2000 but should have far superior acceleration due to the F-414s. That is as long as LCA Mk2 does not see major weight changes than what is planned. LCA has larger wings too, so the requirement for thrust is greater.
Gripen C has plateaued for its design and is at a different level. Something LCA can never hope to match. Meaning its sustained turn rate (STR) exceeds F-16 and has instantaneous turn rates (ITR) that exceeds Mirage-2000. STR is F-16s strength and ITR is Mirage-2000s strength. Gripen exceeds both, so you can only imagine. Canards help. Apart from that it has a very low drag airframe which allows higher acceleration even though the engine delivers the same power as LCA Mk1. As for NG, I don't know.
JF-17, I don't really know. Some sources say that the aircraft handles as good as the F-16 except in the vertical department. Meaning it should have very poor acceleration compared to Mk2. But JF-17 may show better STR and inferior ITR than Mk2. More or less, a F-16 with a weak engine.
RCS has attained significant attention in the world after the arrival of the F-117/B-2 and F-22. However RCS is more relevant to such aircraft where the RCS figures are very very low. As in 1000-10000 times smaller than LCA. RCS figures between 0.1m2 and 100m2 are of less significance because such aircraft do not come in the LO or Low Observable bracket. It merely has a small RCS.
Yes, it is smaller than MKI/F-15 etc, but LCA doesn't have other advantages that can effectively use a low RCS. Meaning LCA does not have the range or the payload or the detection capability that can make actual use of low RCS as a standalone system. Meaning, regardless of the low RCS, LCA will still have to work with other aircraft like Jaguar.
LCA's role is quite simple.
1) Kill something that intruded our territory and was picked up by early warning systems. This is self-explanatory.
2) Escort strike package. Here the LCA stays behind the strike package. In case the strike aircraft are threatened, LCA shoots missiles and chases off the enemy aircraft. Meaning they try and break enemy formations and force them away. In case the enemy persists, our strike package either go on standby or retreat. Of course, they will all function under the mighty umbrella of the MKI where the MKI actually gives chase and makes the kill. During Kargil, the umbrella was provided by Mig-29s (where they chased off F-16s) while 4-6 Mirage-2000s carried strike packages and 2-4 Mirage-2000s escorted the strike package.
For the above two roles, LCA's radar and weapons are adequate.
Seems like LCA is better than the chini aircrafts.
Could you elaborate on this?
Air shows don't really demonstrate much for aircraft because they all fly with optimum fuel and no external stores. Give them weapons, full fuel and drop tanks, they will fly like passenger aircraft. Only 5th gen aircraft are immune to this to a certain extent.
The real benchmark is how good the LCA will fly with external stores. The F-414 is such a good engine that in reality LCA Mk2 will be better than all the Chinese aircraft because they are all using older, inferior stopgap engines and will continue to do so for quite sometime.
PS: I am noob when it comes to these things.
No issues. We are all here to learn.
unlike Sabre-II which was "based" on Chengdu F-7M Grumman Aerospace Corporation was design consultant and was rejected by PAF, LCA is a completely new design which is inducted in IAF.
